- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:10:15 +0000
- To: Richard Newman <rnewman@twinql.com>
- Cc: Jiri Prochazka <ojirio@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 9 Feb 2009, at 23:14, Richard Newman wrote: > Your proposed ontology, IMO, has somewhat limited utility. It does > allow generalization of an inference rule to generate both sets of > annotations from one or the other, but that doesn't solve the > fundamental missing abstraction. It would seem somewhat ridiculous > to me to have every ontology include both reified and direct > forms... for what end? Surely the reified form does everything the > direct form does? Perhaps not every vocabulary needs both reified and direct forms for everything. Vocabularies are typically designed at a certain “granularity”, and if one vocabulary doesn't provide the level of detail that your application needs, then you will have to use another one. I see Jiri's proposal as a potential technique for mapping between those “high-detail” and “low-detail” vocabularies. At the moment, we'd have to use rules for that, because neither RDFS nor OWL can express that sort of mapping. Best, Richard > > > OWL 2 cuts this knot by allowing direct annotations of assertions, > but I don't know a single customer who's thinking about using it (a > chicken/egg problem). (For that matter, I don't know of any > widespread deployments of OWL 1; the most common situation in my > experience is RDFS + simple reasoning.) > > -R > > > On 9 Feb 2009, at 12:54 PM, Jiri Prochazka wrote: > >> This is a good thing, but unfortunately there is no link between the >> properties and the class, which makes the data tagged with the >> properties and the data tagged with the class, like they each used >> different non-interlinked vocabularies... > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 00:10:56 UTC